Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/1998

Home

Z.B. June 25, 1998 Page 3 Inverse Condemnation -- Owners claim fire department intentionally let their barn burn down I I I I I I I I I I '1 I I I I I I Citation: Thompson v. City of Siloam Springs, Supreme Court of Arkansas, No. 97-626 (1998) The Thompsons ran a livestock auction business in Siloam Springs, Ark'., as a nonconforming use. In July 1994, they began negotiating to sell the city their property and the auction barn. Later that month, the Thompsons' barn caught fire. The fire department was 12 blocks away. It received emergency calls at about 9 p.m., but no fire trucks arrived for more than 20 minutes and no water was put on the fire for almost 30 minutes. During the final stages of the fire, firefighters pulled down the walls of an office in the barn. After the fire, the city's zoning board denied the Thompsons' request for a permit to rebuild the barn or to rezone the property. The Thompsons sued the city for inverse condemnation, apparently believing the fire department let their barn burn down to prevent their operating a livestock business. They claimed the fire department breached its duty to respond quickly and appropriately to the fire and intentionally destroyed a major portion of the structure. They also claimed the city arbitrarily refused to grant their request for a permit to rebuild and rezone the property and continue their livestock auction business. According to the Thompsons, these actions amounted to a "taking" of their property in violation of the state consti- tution. They asked for $1.6 million in damages. The trial court awarded the city judgment without a trial, holding the city didn't take the Thompsons' property for public use. It found Thompsons didn't show a history of fire department inaction. It also found the city couldn't be liable for the firefighters' alleged acts of"intentionally letting the Thompsons' property burn down" without proof the firefighters were acting according to an order or city policy. Finally, the court found the Thompsons couldn't show the city deprived them of property use because they never appealed the zoning commission's denial of their application to rebuild. The Thompsons appealed, arguing factual questions existed about whether the fire department intentionally delayed its response to the 911 calls or tried to save the barn. Mr. Thompson said that when the fire rekindled the next morn- ing, a firefighter was upset and said, "Let the damned thing burn down." DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly awarded the city judgment. The Thompsons didn't prove the city took their property through inverse condemnation. Even if the city did plan to buy the Thompsons' property to shut down their business, the city never put any restraints on the Thompsons' property use. The fire department's alleged delay in responding to the fire didn't show the firefighters intentionally failed to put out the fire to shut down the